Obama has no desire to inflict pain/suffering. Its all about the show folks. He is telling Syria where they will fall and when so that people and stuff is all out of the way and in the end he gets a PR boost and covers his ass with the Muslims.

CrockofShitPresident

U.S. airstrikes into Syria will begin within days and involve Tomahawk cruise missiles fired by American warships in the eastern Mediterranean. They will last less than a week and target a limited number of Syrian military installations. And they will be designed to send a stern message to Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, not force him from power.

That’s the word coming from some in the Obama administration — the White House swears it’s not them. And while Obama’s aides publicly insist that the President hasn’t made a final decision about whether to attack Syria, anonymous officials within his administration are leaking a strikingly large amount of detailed information about the timing, duration and scope of the potential military intervention. The flood of details raises a pair of related questions. Is the administration deliberately trying to telegraph its plans for a strike? And if so, why?

“I have no earthly idea why they’re talking so much,” said retired Admiral William Fallon, the former head of the military’s Central Command. “It’s not leaking out; it’s coming out through a hose. It’s just a complete head-scratcher.”

__________________
Frazod to KC Nitwit..."Hey, I saw a picture of some dumpy bitch with a horrible ****tarded giant back tattoo and couldn't help but think of you." Simple, Pure, Perfect. 7/31/2013

Dave Lane: "I have donated more money to people in my life as an atheist that most churches ever will."

Obama has no desire to inflict pain/suffering. Its all about the show folks. He is telling Syria where they will fall and when so that people and stuff is all out of the way and in the end he gets a PR boost and covers his ass with the Muslims.

CrockofShitPresident

It's all about show. That sums it up, IMO.

__________________

"I'll see you guys in New York." ISIS Caliph Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi to US military personnel upon his release from US custody at Camp Bucca in Iraq during Obama's first year in office.

The President can attack whoever he wants, when he wants. Presidents have done that since we were a country.
He has to answer to Congress and the American people for his actions after the fact but not before. You can't start a new policy now.

We bombed the shit out of Libya and the vast majority of the country was good with that "warfare". Congress didn't declare war on anyone.

__________________

Quote:

Originally Posted by Prison Bitch

If the Cardinals were in the American league they would be a middle of the pack team

Obama has no desire to inflict pain/suffering. Its all about the show folks. He is telling Syria where they will fall and when so that people and stuff is all out of the way and in the end he gets a PR boost and covers his ass with the Muslims.

CrockofShitPresident

U.S. airstrikes into Syria will begin within days and involve Tomahawk cruise missiles fired by American warships in the eastern Mediterranean. They will last less than a week and target a limited number of Syrian military installations. And they will be designed to send a stern message to Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, not force him from power.

Thatís the word coming from some in the Obama administration ó the White House swears itís not them. And while Obamaís aides publicly insist that the President hasnít made a final decision about whether to attack Syria, anonymous officials within his administration are leaking a strikingly large amount of detailed information about the timing, duration and scope of the potential military intervention. The flood of details raises a pair of related questions. Is the administration deliberately trying to telegraph its plans for a strike? And if so, why?

ďI have no earthly idea why theyíre talking so much,Ē said retired Admiral William Fallon, the former head of the militaryís Central Command. ďItís not leaking out; itís coming out through a hose. Itís just a complete head-scratcher.Ē

All of this leaked information is certainly making him look bad. For one thing you don't use military intervention to send a message, even a stern one. We should strike decisively with the intent to remove Assad from power, or not at all.

The President can attack whoever he wants, when he wants. Presidents have done that since we were a country.
He has to answer to Congress and the American people for his actions after the fact but not before. You can't start a new policy now.

We bombed the shit out of Libya and the vast majority of the country was good with that "warfare". Congress didn't declare war on anyone.

You have become an idiot. Its in the water, your food, or you are not getting oxygen but you have become a classic example of a village idiot. You need to eliminate the internet from your life and stop talking to people.

__________________
Frazod to KC Nitwit..."Hey, I saw a picture of some dumpy bitch with a horrible ****tarded giant back tattoo and couldn't help but think of you." Simple, Pure, Perfect. 7/31/2013

Dave Lane: "I have donated more money to people in my life as an atheist that most churches ever will."

And rightfully so. Let's recap for those too dumb to follow logic (not you Patteau)

Do we really care that a dictator killed a shitload of his people? If so, there a lot of other horrible dictators and governments we need to have regime change. We can't sacrifice Americans or bear the treasure cost to free every single person on earth from tyranny.

Assad hates us. The majority of opposition hates us. The people who were gassed hate us. If we allow Assad to be overthrown there is a high likely hood that a pro-Iranian, Al-Quaeda Islamic government will take his place. That is worse for us.

Russia can't allow us to bomb one of its friends without consequences.

Iran can't allow us to bomb one of its friends without consequences.

A face off/shooting war with Russia or Iran could spiral out of our control. That is not in our best interest.

The American people will not back or tolerate another ground war in the middle east unless an Al-Qaeda led government takes control of Syria or Israel is in a shooting war with the Arabs and are in trouble.

There is no scenario that we can benefit from using our military in Syria. None.Nada.

__________________

Quote:

Originally Posted by Prison Bitch

If the Cardinals were in the American league they would be a middle of the pack team

Back in 2003 I was in support of the regime change in Iraq. Without rehashing the whole thing I felt like we had a compelling interest. I don't think I would be for a similar campaign today. I think the 10 years since have showed us that we can't project our will in the Muslim world. It's not a world that is going to be any more willing to play by Western guidelines after a current regime is toppled. I just don't think the region is ready for the 21st century in some ways. Look at the brutality in Syria right now as an example. Sure, it would be good if we could stop kids from getting gassed, but I don't think we can. One of these factions gets replaced by another just as brutal.

Its not so much because I think we would be wrong to act, but because I don't think we have any expectation that what we can do would have any meaningful effects. We don't need another well-meaning misadventure with no clear objectives even if we had a positive moral justification for it.

Maybe it's me just getting older, maybe it's lessons learned from the last decade, who knows.

And rightfully so. Let's recap for those too dumb to follow logic (not you Patteau)

Do we really care that a dictator killed a shitload of his people? If so, there a lot of other horrible dictators and governments we need to have regime change. We can't sacrifice Americans or bear the treasure cost to free every single person on earth from tyranny.

Assad hates us. The majority of opposition hates us. The people who were gassed hate us. If we allow Assad to be overthrown there is a high likely hood that a pro-Iranian, Al-Quaeda Islamic government will take his place. That is worse for us.

Russia can't allow us to bomb one of its friends without consequences.

Iran can't allow us to bomb one of its friends without consequences.

A face off/shooting war with Russia or Iran could spiral out of our control. That is not in our best interest.

The American people will not back or tolerate another ground war in the middle east unless an Al-Qaeda led government takes control of Syria or Israel is in a shooting war with the Arabs and are in trouble.

There is no scenario that we can benefit from using our military in Syria. None.Nada.

Your boy Obama seems to think otherwise.

__________________
Frazod to KC Nitwit..."Hey, I saw a picture of some dumpy bitch with a horrible ****tarded giant back tattoo and couldn't help but think of you." Simple, Pure, Perfect. 7/31/2013

Dave Lane: "I have donated more money to people in my life as an atheist that most churches ever will."

British lawmakers on Thursday voted against military intervention in Syria, in a major setback for both British Prime Minister David Cameron and the Obama administration in their push to punish the Assad regime for an alleged chemical weapons strike.
Cameron, who has been aligned with President Obama in advocating a tough response, indicated after the vote that he would abide by the outcome. The measure was narrowly defeated, by 285 votes to 272 votes.

Back in 2003 I was in support of the regime change in Iraq. Without rehashing the whole thing I felt like we had a compelling interest. I don't think I would be for a similar campaign today. I think the 10 years since have showed us that we can't project our will in the Muslim world. It's not a world that is going to be any more willing to play by Western guidelines after a current regime is toppled. I just don't think the region is ready for the 21st century in some ways. Look at the brutality in Syria right now as an example. Sure, it would be good if we could stop kids from getting gassed, but I don't think we can. One of these factions gets replaced by another just as brutal.

Its not so much because I think we would be wrong to act, but because I don't think we have any expectation that what we can do would have any meaningful effects. We don't need another well-meaning misadventure with no clear objectives even if we had a positive moral justification for it.

Maybe it's me just getting older, maybe it's lessons learned from the last decade, who knows.

Good post. it doesnt work because the libral left is too worried about politically correctness, while trying to make the smallest minority happier than the rest of the majority.

Back in 2003 I was in support of the regime change in Iraq. Without rehashing the whole thing I felt like we had a compelling interest. I don't think I would be for a similar campaign today. I think the 10 years since have showed us that we can't project our will in the Muslim world. It's not a world that is going to be any more willing to play by Western guidelines after a current regime is toppled. I just don't think the region is ready for the 21st century in some ways. Look at the brutality in Syria right now as an example. Sure, it would be good if we could stop kids from getting gassed, but I don't think we can. One of these factions gets replaced by another just as brutal.

Its not so much because I think we would be wrong to act, but because I don't think we have any expectation that what we can do would have any meaningful effects. We don't need another well-meaning misadventure with no clear objectives even if we had a positive moral justification for it.

Maybe it's me just getting older, maybe it's lessons learned from the last decade, who knows.

I'm not going to try to change everyone's opinion about this, but my take from the past decade is a little different. Iraq turned out to be a more difficult challenge than we initially thought, but in the end I think it showed that we could effect positive change in some parts of the Muslim world. I think our failure in Iraq came from a lack of will here at home more than from the entire population of Iraq not being ready to move into the 21st century. Just when the violence in Iraq was damped down and we had an opportunity to help the Iraqi modernists deepen their roots and control of their country, we decided that we'd had enough and we elected a man who was more than willing to leave at the first opportunity instead of sticking it out to provide the breathing space necessary for a new way of life to take hold (like we did in Germany, Japan, and South Korea).

I think Afghanistan is a different story. Unlike Iraq, Afghanistan is a truly backward country without an educated middle class so that's a much tougher nut to crack.

__________________

"I'll see you guys in New York." ISIS Caliph Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi to US military personnel upon his release from US custody at Camp Bucca in Iraq during Obama's first year in office.

Just when the violence in Iraq was damped down and we had an opportunity to help the Iraqi modernists deepen their roots and control of their country, we decided that we'd had enough and we elected a man who was more than willing to leave at the first opportunity instead of sticking it out to provide the breathing space necessary for a new way of life to take hold (like we did in Germany, Japan, and South Korea).

I think Afghanistan is a different story. Unlike Iraq, Afghanistan is a truly backward country without an educated middle class so that's a much tougher nut to crack.

This is true fantasyland stuff. If we'd just stayed a little bit longer...

And seriously, you're comparing Iraq with Germany, Japan and South Korea?
There are many reasons that is a ridiculous comparison, with probably the main one being that those three countries didn't have centuries-old religious and ethnic hostilities and civil wars to deal with. Two of those countries were literally divided in two. And South Korea--we're still protecting it 60 years later. Is that the model you had in mind for Iraq?

They just call it a "military action" instead to avoid following the Constitution. But they are really starting a war. Oh wait! That was already started when we went into Iraq. The Congress back then transferred their their authority to decide over to the Executive Branch, something which they have no authority to do either. It just gave that action a false legitimacy that relied on verbal sleight of hand and/or a poor understanding of the document (which most of them have.....as well as a good portion of the masses). Though, Bush didn't feel he needed anything from Congress either. Presidents now decide this due to the UN Participation Act which is very misunderstood.

For me, it's not only a mistake to act on Syria this way and it IS also unConstitutional. So yes, they need to. However, there is no national security interests here for us despite the claim there is a direct one.